On Tuesday, July 03, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 07/02/2012 09:49 PM, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
On Monday, July 02, 2012, Daniel Lezcano wrote:
On 07/02/2012 11:09 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:27 PM, Daniel Lezcano daniel.lezcano@linaro.org wrote:
we discussed last week to put in place a tree grouping the cpuidle modifications [1]. Is it possible to add the tree ?
git://git.linaro.org/people/dlezcano/cpuidle-next.git #cpuidle-next
Thanks for doing this.
Since MAINTAINERS is lacking a listed maintainer for cpuidle, are you also going to add yourself as maintainer and list this tree in that file, or is this a one-time exercise?
I will be glad to do that if Len and Rafael agree on that.
Len Brown has been a cpuidle maintainer for some time now. Moreover, he's been taking patches, but Linus refused to pull his entire tree during the last merge window (as you probably know). I honestly don't think this is a good enough reason for replacing him as a cpuidle maintainer by force.
So, you should ask Len whether or not he's willing to pass the cpuidle maintenance to someone else.
No, no. You are misunderstanding what I am proposing. I don't want to replace Len I just want to act as a "proxy". I understand a maintainer can be busy and could not have enough time to take care of the subsystem is maintaining during a period because he's too busy for that. Trust me, I fully understand that :)
As there are a lot of modifications of cpuidle, I am proposing to take the patches when they are acked-by, to create a consolidated tree, providing a better integration for cpuidle, a wider testing, preventing conflicts and facilitating Len's work if he agrees to pull from this tree.
If that makes sense to add myself to the MAINTAINER file as a co-maintainer (understand: send to me also the patches, so I can take care of them if Len does not respond), I am ok with that.
It is just about helping :)
Cool. :-)
So do you have a branch in the cpuidle-next.git tree that isn't going to be rebased?
I know that Len hasn't been responsive recently, but I also know that he _does_ respond to inquiries sent directly to him.
Do you mean to its intel address ?
Yes, CCing the Len's Intel address won't hurt I think.
Thanks, Rafael